A plan to substitute explosives loaded planes for passenger planes was hatched years ago so the way to get the substitute planes in line with the transponder signals was well planned. A nationwide spoofing of the radar centers during a 'drill' was in place on 911, preventing interceptors from targeting hijacked planes until well after the last one was disposed of.
Traces of the lomh cell calls have been made and they all originated through a certain tower in Northeastern Pennsylvania, near a reserve airbase with a very large NASA hanger at the end of the runway off ramps.
BUilding seven was not hit by a plane and was a controlled demolition, as admitted twoce by Larry Silverstein. To set the charges for such a perfect drop would have taken weeks and could not have been done during a rahing fire int he building ... it like towers 1 and 2 came down at freefall speed, impossible in a pancaking unless the floors are all in freefall, to break each free not impacting one into the next.
But these 'anomolies are a taboo at Freerepublic, so I won't go further. I'll be surprised if my post even remains a few minutes. There is an essay via my profile page.
“But these ‘anomolies are a taboo at Freerepublic”
No they are just irrational.
Planes loaded with explosives? I’m guessing you have no personal experience with explosives. That alone would help you to see the absurdity of your suggestion.
This is not a personal attack and I bet you have no motive other than you want to get what you think is the truth out however you are wrong.
Says who? Cell signals spread out omni-directionally away from the tower. Yes there are freznel zones where the signal is weak, but these are usually within the direct proximity of the tower's vertical plane.
I'm not here to give you a hard time regarding this. I disagree, but I'm not going to get hostile over it.
You have a 747 filled with explosives. It crashes into one of the twin towers. All it does is make a plane shaped impression on the entry side of the structure, and bury into the building.
Where's the evidence of an explosion? All it did was burn, which is exactly what a plane almost full of fuel would do.
If that 747 was full of explosives, the building would have been blown to smithereens as soon as the aircraft impacted. Neither building suffered that sort of explosion. I don't think there's a rational explanation for that other than that the aircraft simply were not filled with explosives. If you think about that for a few moments, you should see a major problem with this theory.
As for Building Seven, it was 200 feet from one of the towers that came down. It was consumed by fire. LINK
The video down toward the bottom of the page shows the building with massive flames coming out of it about half the way to the top. You can see the damage to it, and see things being blown off the building in the video.
I'm sorry, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
Once a building starts to go, if there are five to ten perhaps twenty floors over the ones that remain firm, the weight of those five floors will not evenly distribute like they did when they were structurally sound. This adds five to ten to twenty times the normal weight the sound floor would normally have to support. It just can't do it.
Pancaking is what you'll wind up with.
Imagine your home with twenty other homes dropped from 100 feet on it. Do you think it would hesitate before going flat as a pancake? I don't.